Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Kendall Bennett wrote: David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Even though I have XFree86 CVS commit access, I do most of my new work in a separate tree, which I keep in sync with the XFree86 tree. I don't find this to be a significant burden. Sure, I don't do actual development in that tree either. But when I am done I need to the code into the official tree to avoid major patching and integration headaches in the future. For you that is easy, since you can just commit your changes into the primary tree. I doubt that I do as much development work as you, but I've found CVS's merging reliable enough that I can afford to do a CVS update into my development tree every night. When the update touches lines that I have also changed, it handles the conflict well enough that it is easy to sort out. Sure, the CVS tree doesn't compile from time to time, but it averages less than once a month, and if I can't fix it, someone else will in a couple of days. Even then a build failure in a part of the tree I'm not working on isn't a problem. -- Andrew C Aitchison ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Andrew C Aitchison wrote: Even though I have XFree86 CVS commit access, I do most of my new work in a separate tree, which I keep in sync with the XFree86 tree. I don't find this to be a significant burden. Sure, I don't do actual development in that tree either. But when I am done I need to the code into the official tree to avoid major patching and integration headaches in the future. For you that is easy, since you can just commit your changes into the primary tree. I doubt that I do as much development work as you, but I've found CVS's merging reliable enough that I can afford to do a CVS update into my development tree every night. When the update touches lines that I have also changed, it handles the conflict well enough that it is easy to sort out. You are definitely more trusting of CVS than I am... I _never_ use a checked out tree for development. Marc. +--+---+ | Marc Aurele La France | work: 1-780-492-9310 | | Computing and Network Services | fax:1-780-492-1729 | | 352 General Services Building | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | University of Alberta +---+ | Edmonton, Alberta | | | T6G 2H1 | Standard disclaimers apply| | CANADA | | +--+---+ XFree86 developer and VP. ATI driver and X server internals. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
Hello all, Previously I erronously sent this to the list (and strangely this post which was sent immediately afterwards appears to been filtered out): From: Kendall Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Harold L Hunt II [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Harold, What is the latest status on Cygwin/XFree86? I want to start working on a port of X to Windows, and figured I would start with Cygwin/X to see how that works. I really want to build this with Open Watcom, not GCC, but I don't know what the latest status is. Does the 4.3.0 tree build cleanly for Cygwin, or do you need to apply some patches to make this work? I was not able to figure out where those patches live from the Cygwin/X web site. Finally have you considered building Cygwin/X with the new SFU 3.5 tools fom Microsoft? It includes native ports of GCC to Windows, which may be better than Cygwin performance wise. I don't know however if the SFU SDK will allow you access to Windows services or only Unix ones. Also I don't recall if I offered to host the Cygwin port in our Perforce server. We already have a public 4.3.0 tree that has been patched with our SciTech SNAP driver code in it (for Linux), and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. Before anyone spams me with flame mail, perhaps I should explain the last paragraph. Clearly the future of XFree86 is very murky right now, as many developers have left to work on other projects such as freedesktop.org, and now with the core team disbanded it is unclear exactly how companies such as SciTech or vendors such as ATI, Via, SiS etc who do not have direct connections with someone on the XFree86 committer list can get their patches into XFree86. From what I can tell basically nothing has really changed and it is just as difficult as before to get submissions into XFree86 (witness the problems of the Cygwin developers getting their patches accepted). IMHO the XFree86 user community cannot sit around and wait for the XFree86 group to figure out where they want to go and if/when they will open up the project to allow more developers with CVS committer access. The alternatives such as freedesktop.org and Xouvert are more focussed on future technology that provided a home for a stable X server for multiple platforms. For that reason we are considering the option of opening up our existing Perforce server (which already has a mirror of XFree86 code in it) to public development. Hence I offered the Cygwin/X head developer access to that server if he is interested. Regards, --- Kendall Bennett Chief Executive Officer SciTech Software, Inc. Phone: (530) 894 8400 http://www.scitechsoft.com ~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~ ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally have you considered building Cygwin/X with the new SFU 3.5 tools fom Microsoft? It includes native ports of GCC to Windows, which may be better than Cygwin performance wise. I don't know however if the SFU SDK will allow you access to Windows services or only Unix ones. Sounds like a great idea. A native Windows build/port would be ideal, IMHO. I am working on getting both a native Windows port and OS/2 working properly again. I would much prefer *not* to have to use my own source tree and constantly patch in changes from thd XFree86 tree (or the X.org tree or whatever). Since it sounds like you think this is a good idea, can I get CVS commit access to complete this work? Also I don't recall if I offered to host the Cygwin port in our Perforce server. We already have a public 4.3.0 tree that has been patched with our SciTech SNAP driver code in it (for Linux), and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. The more the merrier. I would much prefer to work within the official tree if possible. Regards, --- Kendall Bennett Chief Executive Officer SciTech Software, Inc. Phone: (530) 894 8400 http://www.scitechsoft.com ~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~ ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
Kendall Bennett wrote: Clearly the future of XFree86 is very murky right now, as many developers have left to work on other projects such as freedesktop.org, and now with the core team disbanded it is unclear exactly how companies such as SciTech or vendors such as ATI, Via, SiS etc who do not have direct connections with someone on the XFree86 committer list can get their patches into XFree86. Offtopic: From my experience with SiS and the quality of their code (if it deserves that name), I seriouly hope they don't at all. And BTW, they have contact with me. Thomas -- Thomas Winischhofer Vienna/Austria thomas AT winischhofer DOT net *** http://www.winischhofer.net/ twini AT xfree86 DOT org ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:58:53AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Finally have you considered building Cygwin/X with the new SFU 3.5 tools fom Microsoft? It includes native ports of GCC to Windows, which may be better than Cygwin performance wise. I don't know however if the SFU SDK will allow you access to Windows services or only Unix ones. Sounds like a great idea. A native Windows build/port would be ideal, IMHO. I am working on getting both a native Windows port and OS/2 working properly again. I would much prefer *not* to have to use my own source tree and constantly patch in changes from thd XFree86 tree (or the X.org tree or whatever). Since it sounds like you think this is a good idea, can I get CVS commit access to complete this work? Even though I have XFree86 CVS commit access, I do most of my new work in a separate tree, which I keep in sync with the XFree86 tree. I don't find this to be a significant burden. David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:53:40AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: Clearly the future of XFree86 is very murky right now, as many developers have left to work on other projects such as freedesktop.org, and now with the core team disbanded it is unclear exactly how companies such as SciTech or vendors such as ATI, Via, SiS etc who do not have direct connections with someone on the XFree86 committer list can get their patches into XFree86. From what I can tell basically nothing has really changed and it is just as difficult as before to get submissions into XFree86 (witness the problems of the Cygwin developers getting their patches accepted). Submissions should be made via bugs.xfree86.org. New work should be discussed here in advance. This has been the submission policy since bugs.xfree86.org was setup, and it applies to individuals and companies alike. Anyone looking to short-circuit this public submission mechanism and the public review that goes with it will be disappointed. David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
David Dawes wrote: On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:53:40AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: Clearly the future of XFree86 is very murky right now, as many developers have left to work on other projects such as freedesktop.org, and now with the core team disbanded it is unclear exactly how companies such as SciTech or vendors such as ATI, Via, SiS etc who do not have direct connections with someone on the XFree86 committer list can get their patches into XFree86. From what I can tell basically nothing has really changed and it is just as difficult as before to get submissions into XFree86 (witness the problems of the Cygwin developers getting their patches accepted). Submissions should be made via bugs.xfree86.org. New work should be discussed here in advance. This has been the submission policy since bugs.xfree86.org was setup, and it applies to individuals and companies alike. Anyone looking to short-circuit this public submission mechanism and the public review that goes with it will be disappointed. Interesting interpretation of how bugs.xfree86.org has been used historically. Hmm... I recall a slightly different reality: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03713.html **Dunno where it goes, just that thankfully I don't receive any of it.** The way I understand bugzilla is that people have to go to the web interface looking for stuff. David Emphasis is mine. Oops, well, try again next time. Harold ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 01:56:37PM -0500, Harold L Hunt II wrote: David Dawes wrote: On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:53:40AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: Clearly the future of XFree86 is very murky right now, as many developers have left to work on other projects such as freedesktop.org, and now with the core team disbanded it is unclear exactly how companies such as SciTech or vendors such as ATI, Via, SiS etc who do not have direct connections with someone on the XFree86 committer list can get their patches into XFree86. From what I can tell basically nothing has really changed and it is just as difficult as before to get submissions into XFree86 (witness the problems of the Cygwin developers getting their patches accepted). Submissions should be made via bugs.xfree86.org. New work should be discussed here in advance. This has been the submission policy since bugs.xfree86.org was setup, and it applies to individuals and companies alike. Anyone looking to short-circuit this public submission mechanism and the public review that goes with it will be disappointed. Interesting interpretation of how bugs.xfree86.org has been used historically. Hmm... I recall a slightly different reality: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg03713.html **Dunno where it goes, just that thankfully I don't receive any of it.** The way I understand bugzilla is that people have to go to the web interface looking for stuff. To add a little context, the where I was referring to is email to the placeholder [EMAIL PROTECTED] address. Bugzilla is a primarily a web-based system, and the email side of it leaves a lot to be desired. That's why few of the people who review and commit stuff submitted there are subscribed to that placeholder email list I was referring to. Try subscribing to it and see how much noise it generates. Maybe you could clarify what point you are trying to make. I don't think that bugzilla is the best method for handling submissions precisely because the email aspect of it is lousy, and because there don't appear to be good mechanisms for separating submissions from user support stuff. But, it is what we have... David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
For that reason we are considering the option of opening up our existing Perforce server (which already has a mirror of XFree86 code in it) to public development. i don't understand this. is your perforce server just a ditto of the xfree86 cvs? or does it do more? there's lots of copies hanging out of the xf86 tree all over the net except for sourceforge ;-) what do you offer that's better, different? i think an open-source x on windows is it; is perforce addressing this? imho, this cygwin dude is beat. mark. ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Since it sounds like you think this is a good idea, can I get CVS commit access to complete this work? Even though I have XFree86 CVS commit access, I do most of my new work in a separate tree, which I keep in sync with the XFree86 tree. I don't find this to be a significant burden. Sure, I don't do actual development in that tree either. But when I am done I need to the code into the official tree to avoid major patching and integration headaches in the future. For you that is easy, since you can just commit your changes into the primary tree. Regards, --- Kendall Bennett Chief Executive Officer SciTech Software, Inc. Phone: (530) 894 8400 http://www.scitechsoft.com ~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~ ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:17:30AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: What is the latest status on Cygwin/XFree86? I want to start working on a port of X to Windows, and figured I would start with Cygwin/X to see how that works. I really want to build this with Open Watcom, not GCC, but I don't know what the latest status is. Does the 4.3.0 tree build cleanly for Cygwin, or do you need to apply some patches to make this work? I was not able to figure out where those patches live from the Cygwin/X web site. We have binaries for Cygwin on our ftp site for the second 4.4.0 release candidate. We will continue to provide XFree86 on Windows, although whether it will continue to be done with a Cygwin-based solution is an open issue. Finally have you considered building Cygwin/X with the new SFU 3.5 tools fom Microsoft? It includes native ports of GCC to Windows, which may be better than Cygwin performance wise. I don't know however if the SFU SDK will allow you access to Windows services or only Unix ones. Sounds like a great idea. A native Windows build/port would be ideal, IMHO. Also I don't recall if I offered to host the Cygwin port in our Perforce server. We already have a public 4.3.0 tree that has been patched with our SciTech SNAP driver code in it (for Linux), and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. The more the merrier. David -- David Dawes X-Oz Technologies www.XFree86.org/~dawes www.x-oz.com ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:17:30AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: [...], and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. The more the merrier. Wouldn't it be better to iron out the 'political issues' over the current (and pretty much working!) XFree86 Windows port (via Cygwin) instead of creating a parallel universe !? Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -- ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Martin Spott wrote: David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:17:30AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: [...], and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. The more the merrier. Wouldn't it be better to iron out the 'political issues' over the current (and pretty much working!) XFree86 Windows port (via Cygwin) instead of creating a parallel universe !? Kendall's comments were partly directed toward efforts that Cygwin is not interested in. Since he's interested they will not be, there's no issue to iron out. -- Thomas E. Dickey http://invisible-island.net ftp://invisible-island.net ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
On Sat, Jan 24, 2004 at 04:18:29PM +, Martin Spott wrote: David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:17:30AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: [...], and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. The more the merrier. Wouldn't it be better to iron out the 'political issues' over the current (and pretty much working!) XFree86 Windows port (via Cygwin) instead of creating a parallel universe !? I don't see how any supposedly political issues (whatever they may be?) are relevant to investigating alternative technical solutions for an XFree86 Windows port. If you have non-technical (i.e., political) issues to discuss, go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a technical list. David -- David Dawes developer/release engineer The XFree86 Project www.XFree86.org/~dawes ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Martin Spott wrote: David Dawes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 10:17:30AM -0800, Kendall Bennett wrote: [...], and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. The more the merrier. Wouldn't it be better to iron out the 'political issues' over the current (and pretty much working!) XFree86 Windows port (via Cygwin) instead of creating a parallel universe !? Kendall's comments were partly directed toward efforts that Cygwin is not interested in. Since he's interested they will not be, there's no issue to iron out. I'm not sure who Cygwin is, but I am just a developer and I am always interested in these sorts of things. Harold ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Cygwin/XFree86 Status?
Hi Harold, What is the latest status on Cygwin/XFree86? I want to start working on a port of X to Windows, and figured I would start with Cygwin/X to see how that works. I really want to build this with Open Watcom, not GCC, but I don't know what the latest status is. Does the 4.3.0 tree build cleanly for Cygwin, or do you need to apply some patches to make this work? I was not able to figure out where those patches live from the Cygwin/X web site. Finally have you considered building Cygwin/X with the new SFU 3.5 tools fom Microsoft? It includes native ports of GCC to Windows, which may be better than Cygwin performance wise. I don't know however if the SFU SDK will allow you access to Windows services or only Unix ones. Also I don't recall if I offered to host the Cygwin port in our Perforce server. We already have a public 4.3.0 tree that has been patched with our SciTech SNAP driver code in it (for Linux), and I am in discussions with some of the other members of the community about starting a new project to take over where the XFree86 team appears to be stuck. If you are interested let me know. Regards, --- Kendall Bennett Chief Executive Officer SciTech Software, Inc. Phone: (530) 894 8400 http://www.scitechsoft.com ~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~ ___ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
